Girls' Education

Baroness Amos: My honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I am today placing in the Libraries of both Houses copies of Girls' Education: towards a better future for all published today by the Department for International Development (DfID).
	At the turn of the millennium, the international community promised that by 2005, there would be as many girls as boys in school. Despite this promise, there are still 58 million girls worldwide who are not in school. The majority of these girls live in sub-Saharan Africa and south and west Asia. A girl growing up in a poor family in sub-Saharan Africa has less than a one-in-four chance of getting a secondary education. The millennium development goal (MDG) to get as many girls as boys into primary and secondary school by 2005 is likely to be missed in over 75 countries. Later this year, when leaders from around the world come together to take stock of the MDGs, there will be no escaping the fact that we have collectively failed to keep our promise.
	The paper reminds us of the value of education for lifting people out of poverty and enabling them to build a more promising future for themselves, their families and their nations. Nothing has as much impact on a child's future well-being as their mother's level of education. Educating girls helps to make communities and societies healthier, wealthier and safer. It helps to reduce child death, improve maternal health and tackle the spread of HIV and AIDS. Girls' education underpins the ability to achieve all the other MDGs, which is why the timetable was set as 2005.
	This strategy is a first step to get us back on track and it acknowledges that we all need to do substantially more to help girls get into school. To this end, we plan to spend at least £1.4 billion on education in the developing world over the next three years. This money will provide additional support to governments in developing countries to produce plans that prioritise girls' education. This will include providing financial help to those wanting to remove school fees and indirect costs of educating girls. The money will also be used to provide more resources to strengthen international efforts to co-ordinate action on girls' education. We will also use the UK's 2005 presidencies of the G8 and EU and our role as co-chair of the Fast-Track Initiative (FTI) to push gender equality in education up the political agenda and make it a priority for the international community.

House of Lords: Appointments

Baroness Amos: My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The House of Lords Appointments Commission is responsible for recommending non-party-political appointments to the House of Lords. However, I continue to nominate direct to Her Majesty the Queen a limited number of distinguished public servants on retirement. I have decided that the number of appointments covered under this arrangement will not exceed 10 in any one Parliament.

EU Constitutional Treaty

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Jack Straw) is making available today a commentary on the treaty establishing a constitution for Europe. This commentary will be available in the Vote Office and the Library of the House. It will be published as a Command Paper in advance of Second Reading of the EU Bill. Copies of the Command Paper will be distributed to the media and key opinion formers, including academics, think tanks and business organisations. It will be available on the FCO website www.europe.gov.uk and will be distributed to central libraries across the UK.
	The Government have already published a White Paper on the treaty establishing a constitution for Europe (Cm 6309) and a guide to the EU which, as well as providing general information about the EU, also explains in general terms what the Constitutional Treaty is about. This commentary has been produced to meet the Government's further commitment to Parliament, originally to the Lords European Scrutiny Committee to produce "an analysis of the draft Treaty against existing Treaty provisions". This commitment was reiterated by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on 4 May 2004 when he agreed that "the Government will publish a range of material to accompany the Constitutional Treaty including . . . a comprehensive analysis and comparison of the existing Treaties and the new Constitutional Treaty" (Official Report, Commons, col. 1456W). The commentary, in analysing every article of the draft treaty, explains what each article does where this is not obvious from the text, explains where the treaty provision derives from if it is not new, and sets out where legislative procedures have changed.
	The EU Constitutional Treaty is complex. It has to be, because it is not a law for governing a superstate, but a carefully drafted treaty regulating in detail the relations between European nations in a variety of areas. The treaty is also long. It consists of a preamble, 448 articles arranged in four parts, 36 protocols and two annexes and the 50 declarations, which were included in the official record of the signature ceremony. Much of it is a replication of the existing treaties.
	The most important provisions of the treaty are all contained within the 60 short articles of Part I. These make it clearer than ever before that the EU is a union of sovereign states, which can only exercise those powers given to it by its members. Part II consists of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Part III explains what the Union seeks to achieve in the various policy areas in which powers are conferred on it and what the limits on its powers are. It also sets out the detailed legislative procedures for exercising these powers, much of which is taken verbatim from existing treaties. Part IV sets out technical and supplementary provisions. It also sets out how the treaty may be amended, how it is to be ratified and when it will come into force.
	If the new treaty is approved by all the member states and comes into force, it will replace all the old EU treaties (apart from the EURATOM Treaty) thus simplifying the legal framework of the Union and the communities.
	The commentary on the treaty is designed to guide the reader through the treaty and explain its significance. It is in two parts. Part One acts as a general introduction and Part Two analyses each article of the treaty.
	The introduction explains how the EU treaties have evolved over the past 50 years from the Economic Coal and Steel Community (1951) to the draft Constitutional Treaty. It sets out what the new Constitutional Treaty does and what it contains. The introduction also includes:
	a section on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, explaining the origins and significance of the charter;
	guidance on how to read the treaty and use the accompanying analysis; and
	an appendix setting out the development of the competences of the European Union from the Treaty of Rome to the Constitutional Treaty.
	Part Two of the commentary provides an article-by-article analysis of the Constitutional Treaty, following its structure and layout. Part Two contains an annexe, which sets out the areas in the new treaty which have moved to either qualified majority voting (QMV) or to co-decision or both. This annexe updates and supplements the answer given by my honourable friend the Minister for Europe (Mr Denis MacShane) on 5 July 2004 (Official Report, Commons, col. 593W) in order, inter alia, to take account of the procedural changes since that date in the existing treaty provisions. A list of abbreviations and a glossary of key terms used throughout the commentary is also provided.
	This Constitutional Treaty can only come into force once it has been ratified in accordance with the constitutional arrangements of each member state. In the UK, this will require primary legislation amending the European Communities Act 1972 and then endorsement in a referendum.
	The Government believe that the commentary demonstrates the merit of reorganising the existing treaties into a single coherent document. It also shows clearly how little of the new Constitutional Treaty is in fact new: the bulk of its provisions are derived directly from and closely follow provisions in the existing treaties.
	We hope that this commentary will help inform debate and discussion during the passage of the EU Bill.

Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001: Intercept Material

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We are announcing today the Government's conclusions on the review on the evidential use of intercept material in criminal proceedings. This accompanies the announcement my right honourable friend the Home Secretary made on counter-terrorism legislation following the House of Lords' ruling on the use of ATCSA Part 4 powers.
	My right honourable friend the Prime Minister commissioned the review in July 2003. Its remit was to examine the benefits and risks of using intercept as evidence to secure more convictions of organised criminals and terrorists. In doing so, the review was tasked with considering how a legal model providing for the use of interception for evidential purposes, could be deployed in a way which is compatible with the ECHR, addresses the practical concerns of the intercepting agencies and takes account of developments in communications technology.
	The review, which was the most thorough and far-reaching of five reviews on the subject in the last 10 years, reported last summer. It concluded that evidential use of intercept would be likely to help secure a modest increase in convictions of some serious criminals but not terrorists. The preferred legal model for evidential use of intercept would comprise three types of interception warrant—intelligence only, non-evidential and evidential, the latter requiring authorisation by a judge. Intelligence only and non-evidential warrants would continue to be authorised by the Secretary of State and would provide criteria-based protections against disclosure in court of the most sensitive interception capabilities and techniques. Set against the benefits that this approach might deliver, the review identified a number of serious risks that evidential use of intercept would entail for the intercepting agencies and their present capabilities in fighting serious crime and terrorism.
	The review did not make agreed recommendations for or against lifting the prohibition on evidential use of intercept but invited Ministers to consider, in the light of the evidence presented on the balance of benefits and risks, whether or not to do so.
	Further work on what might be done to mitigate the risks identified in the review report was completed shortly before Christmas. This showed that there was no immediate prospect of removing the main risks, partly because of the difficulty of assessing the impact of major changes expected in communications technologies over the next few years.
	The Government have from the outset made it clear that they would change the law on evidential use of intercept only if they could be satisfied that the benefits of doing so clearly outweigh the risks. We have therefore concluded that it would not be right to legislate now to remove the existing prohibition. We will continue to keep these issues under review.
	The review report is a classified document which cannot be published in the ordinary way. It will however be made available to the Intelligence and Security Committee to which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will give further evidence if requested to do so. A summary of the report's main findings is set out below:
	there is no easy or risk-free way of keeping what our "intelligence only" approach—with its uniquely close working relationships between law enforcement and intelligence agencies—delivers now and adding to this the benefits that evidential use of intercept could deliver. Evidential regimes in other countries provide useful pointers on the latter but are of little help on the first point;
	the ideal of allowing intercepting agencies unfettered freedom to choose when to go evidential is not an option as it would be open to "cherry picking" and therefore fails to meet the requirements of ensuring fairness in criminal proceedings;
	evidential use of intercept would be likely to help convict some serious criminals;
	intercept evidence would be unlikely to assist in prosecuting terrorist targets and would not have made a critical difference in supporting criminal prosecution of those detained under ATCSA (Part 4) powers; and
	a legal model providing for three types of interception warrant—intelligence only, non-evidential, and evidential—appears to offer the best basis for evidential use of intercept. Substantial further work would be needed on the details of the legal model before it could be introduced. Major changes expected in communications technologies over the next few years mean that the model potentially has only a very short shelf-life.

Reservists: Financial Assistance

Lord Bach: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ivor Caplin) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	On the 22 July 2004, (Official Report, Commons, col. 62WS), my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence and Minister for Veterans announced to the House the publication of a consultation document entitled Safeguards for Reservists and their Employers: Proposed Amendments to the Schemes for Financial Assistance Awards for Reservists and their Employers setting out our proposals to update the financial assistance arrangements for reservists who are called-out for permanent service. This received a wide circulation and copies were placed in the Library of the House. Altogether 4,156 visits were recorded to the website including the consultation document before the consultation period closed on 15 October 2004. One hundred and thirty-nine responses were recorded to the online survey and a further 66 individuals responded to the consultation by separate e-mail or by post, while 922 people downloaded the consultation document. An analysis of the responses is available on the MoD website at www.financialassistance.mod.uk/files/pdf/Consultation Results.
	It is clear from the responses received that our proposals will meet the aspirations of the overwhelming majority of those who responded to the consultation. I am therefore today publishing the regulatory impact assessment (RIA). This outlines the impact our proposals would have on reservists and employers. The document will receive a similar circulation to the original consultation and copies will be placed in the Library of the House. The RIA will also be available electronically both on the consultations section of the main Ministry of Defence website at www.mod.uk/consultations/consultations.htm and on the SaBRE website accessible from its front-page at www.sabre.mod.uk/.
	We are inviting comments on the RIA over the next four weeks, with the consultation period ending on 22 February. Subject to any responses, I anticipate being able to introduce the replacement regulations in March 2005.

Army: Northern Ireland Battalions

Lord Bach: My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Defence (Mr Adam Ingram) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	As part of our normal process of keeping force levels under review, the GOC Northern Ireland, in consultation with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Chief Constable of the PSNI, has concluded that one of his GB-based battalions can be removed from his command as it is not required for routine support to the police in Northern Ireland. Accordingly, the battalion known as Mainland Battalion 1 (MLD 1), the companies of which have not been routinely based in the Province, can be removed from the command of the GOC NI to CinC LAND on 26 January 2005.
	This is a prudent measure to provide military support to the police efficiently and does not affect the Army's ability to support the PSNI in countering the threat from terrorism and preventing potential public disorder. We will keep force levels in Northern Ireland under regular review to match the support required by the PSNI.

Regulatory Impact Assessments

Lord Bassam of Brighton: An updated measurement of the level of compliance with the regulatory impact assessment process is today being placed on the website of the Cabinet Office regulatory impact unit. An exercise in November 2004 to establish a snapshot of the level of compliance, based on consultations carried out in the three months to 16 November 2004, showed a compliance rate of 100 per cent. We will continue to keep this under regular review and will report back to Parliament as appropriate.